Since we're getting off track here, I'd say Antietam was more significant as it forever crippled the A.N.V as a force able to wage and sustain an invasion campaign, as evidenced by the subsequent defeat at Gettysburg. To parallel this discussion, I believe HRC was crippled by his string of consecutive victories after Super Tuesday.

Stephen Wynne, Hilliard, Ohio

Check your stats...you are way off...Obama has the popular and delegate lead..And clinton is not eloquent or honest --she is just wonky..

docb, denver, co-USA

Have another Civil War for all I care.

ian, London, UK

"Most of those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young) would nevertheless back the New York senator in November."

That is highly unlikely to happen. I don't know a single African American that will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination - or for that matter, vote for her EVER again...for anything. And the young people and first time voters who flocked to the party because of Barack Obama are more than likely to be turned off by SUPERdelegates who select Clinton even though Obama is ahead in delegates, states won, and popular vote. The young, and those who hadn't been voting, are going to stay home - and not vote at all. Hillary may get Obama's affluent whites...but those are the only Obama supporters she could count on in November.

DeeDee, Silver Spring,

Gettysburg was more of a stalemate. Lee retreated, but Meade was unable to pursue and crush the Confederate army.

Henry, Dallas, USA/Texas

In the end, it doesn't matter. John McCain will win by a landslide. Just my humble opinion.

Marilyn, Pennsylvania, USA

I love the consistent labelling of groups in commentaries on US politics, ie "those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young)". Why not break it down further? Maybe Latte-drinking-Toyota-driving-non-vegetarian-affluent Whites? It is all Balkanization pure and simple. We are human beings, not demographic trends, and we vote according to simple facts and complicated emotions that, however sadly, cannot be summed up in a poll. The problem with Hillary's campaign has been that she has not seen that fact. She does not connect and instead offers platitudes and classic political maneuvers because that's what polling trends seem to indicate would work best. Both she, and the media, have been consistently wrong on all these counts, from the "assured" dive in support after the "bitter" comment to the first contest in Iowa. Hillary is a great candidate who has been blinded by the numbers.

Ian, New York, NY, USA

Well written article, I must say. Good analogy, and logic. But, I hope, for the sake of the nation, and any other nation that is affected by ours (read: THE WORLD), i hope, and I pray that Hillary is out of the running in the next 24-48 hours. Though, I prefer the idea of McCain as President, Hillary at the helm is positively terrifying. So, I'll ask all the Obama supporters...vote early, vote often!

Dan, Portland, US

Am I alone in asking why anyone would vote for poll-driven, mass-produced, thermo-plastic, nonentities like Obama or Clinton when they could elect McCain; a hand-crafted, cast-steel, statesman with a mind of his own and the courage to use it?

If the good people of Pennsylvania want to save the Union a second time perhaps they should send a real message to the "superdelegates" by writing McCain in on the Democratic primary.

Mike Wilkes, Brisbane, Queensland

This is more like EDSEL and not Lincoln
RS

RS, Shelton, CT

Sharpsburg was the bloodiest single day; Gettysburg was, I believe, the bloodiest action overall.

And Meade vs Lee at Gettysburg is an apt comparison, given that the Wilderness was a bloody stalemate, followed by the last Confederate victories of the war.

Owen Edwards, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK

"Secondly, any advantage that Mr Obama will have among pledged delegates is misleading. Not only will Mrs Clinton have won in most of the largest states but she will probably have secured the bulk of delegates won in primaries - where turnout is comparatively high, while he has romped home in the caucuses - where participation is notoriously feeble. "

NO - Barring huge turnout and blowout wins, Obama will end up with a popular vote lead overall, rendering this argument redundant.

Furthermore, if all the superdelegates were compelled to vote for the person who won the most votes in their state (which they should not be, but it is an interesting exercise), then Mrs Clinton, who is likely to end the season having triumphed in eight of the most populous ten states

I believe this is also wrong - i saw stats somewhere that BO will end up with more delegates than HRC if they all went with who their constituents votes for.

mark, london, uk

I'm surprised, considering what appears to be an implication in your eigth paragraph that more people have voted for Hillary, that you have not mentioned the popular vote. Obama leads here too, and I would have thought that would be a point of interest in an article such as this.

Nick, London,

Is Nick from London really daft enough to imagine Tim Hames thinks Lincoln was the general in the field at Gettysburg!?

Missing the point by a country mile.

Rob, Twickenham,

Mr Hames,

I seem to remember your column at the outset of Senator Obama's campaign. It was less than flattering about the senator and almost purile in content. You dismissed Senator Obama's candidature as a joke. Little of what you have written about this presidential campaign has represented actual events and again, we find that this column is filled with inaccuracies. In fact it could be argued that your 'predictions' have represented wishful thinking on your part rather reasoned analysis.

At least your support for Mrs Clinton is consistent with type, she also has a serious problem with facts.

Donovan Wright, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom

Chris of Los Angeles is correct in that Antietam was the bloodiest single day in the Civil War - Gettysburg was, however, fought over three days, resulting in around twice as many casualties overall.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Tim, I hate to point this out, but Lincoln did not win the battle of Gettysburg. that honour goes to General George Mead. Your parallel is charming, but simply inaccurate on the history. You might try Lee versus Grant in the Battle of the Wilderness. That's a more apt parallel, although I doubt that Clinton will emerge as the new Grant.

Nick, London, Uk

The bloodiest battle of the Civil War was in Maryland at Antietam.

Chris, LOS ANGELES , USA

If Senator Obama goes out of the Primary/Caucus season with a commanding lead (100+) in pledged delegates over Senator Clinton, and the Superdelegates decide to go with Clinton instead, it could well be the end of the Democratic Party.

This is not just about two candidates, nor about the victory in November, but about the nature of the party (new, innovative, honest, inclusive versus old, devious, crafty, exclusive) in the future.

Those who have tasted and dreamt a future which is not more of the same-old, same-old will not settle for doing business as usual (lobbyists, privileged money, our-way-or-the-highway).

Had the voice of the people said they were not ready for such change, it would be a different matter.

I guess it would be like your citizens-at-large voicing a clear message and the House of Lord or the Queen deciding they knew better what was good for the common people.

O, yes, I remember now - that was how the little dust-up in 1776 began.

the Rev Dr Randolph Becker, Key West, Conch Republic

The un-examined question is "If those who voted in the primaries prior to March 1 had known what has now been revealed, or rumoured, about Mr. Obama, would they nevertheless have voted for him? Would he still have a lead in 'committed' delegates?"

Russ Armstrong, Becker, Minnesota

Well, as to your statement 'many of her Democrats may switch to McCain' suggests to me that Democrats should make a pledge to vote for whomever is the winner, no buts about it.
Americans would be ludicrous to vote against their own party in the GE because there mustn't be a return of Republicans just to spite their own as it would lead to further deterioration in the world politic body.
If, either Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama does not live up to voter expection, I think, it would be much easier to influence the leader to reconsider policy.

Beverly, Squamish, Canada